header-logo header-logo

Money talks

02 September 2010 / Sarah Johnson
Issue: 7431 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Sarah Johnson analyses employees gagging for a pay discussion

Gagging staff will become more difficult next month, at least where pay discussions are concerned. Some contracts include pay secrecy terms. However, these could prevent someone discovering whether they are paid less for discriminatory reasons.

When the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) comes into force on 1 October 2010, reliance on gagging clauses will be restricted. The Act does not ban gagging clauses altogether, but a clause will be unenforceable if it seeks to prevent a “relevant pay disclosure”. The intention is to ensure greater workplace transparency and dialogue about pay. “Pay” could cover salary, bonus and other benefits, such as pension.

Under s 77 of the Act, a term of a person’s work that purports to prevent or restrict that person (P) from: (i) disclosing or seeking to disclose information about the terms of P’s work is unenforceable against P in so far as P makes or seeks to make a relevant pay disclosure to colleagues or third parties, or (ii) seeking disclosure of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll